In "soft" sciences like sociology, it's much more difficult to detect
manipulation of research, than in "hard" sciences like physics. Soft
science researchers who strive for objectivity deserve an extra
measure of respect. Sadly, far too many researchers are more
concerned with pushing an agenda than with objectivity. These same
problems are not unknown in the world of journalism.
Since the soft sciences and the media have a powerful influence on
social policies in this country, this affects every family and every individual.

is about the broken "science" that's being used
to create law and drive social policy.

Recent information has come to light that ABC's Prime Time Live is
working on a piece on domestic violence that may distort the issue
in much the same way
as PBS' recently aired “Breaking the Silence:
Children's Stories”.

There is now credible evidence to seriously question the
assertions
by the producers of that PBS program, “we had no
preconceived notions,” and “the finished documentary is simply a
result of where countless hours of extensive research and interviews
took us.” Is ABC going down the same path?

Deborah Fellows recently spoke with Thomas Berman, a
producer for ABC's Prime Time Live. The following information, provided by
Ms. Fellows, suggests that ABC may be screening out stories that don't
fit the slant they want to put on the issue. Berman explained to
Fellows that since ABC has covered the issue of domestic violence so
frequently, they are looking for some new angle from which to address
it. Considering the near-total lack of media coverage of
female-on-male domestic violence, one would think that this would
count as a new angle. Especially considering that this
angle would inform the public about 835,000 of the 2.1
million cases of partner-assault that happen annually according to the U.S. Dept. of
Justice National Violence Against Women Survey.

But Ms. Fellows reports that when she described a domestic
violence case in which the victim was male and the abuser
was female, Berman's response was that ABC wasn't going to
focus on abused men. What Berman seemed to be particularly
looking for, according to Fellows, was a story of a woman
who did everything the system tells a woman to do to protect
herself, but still ended up dead. He seemed primarily
interested finding a case he could use to argue that
anti-woman bias on the part of judges and police officers is
resulting in women's deaths.

Fellows said Berman noted that although the number of men killed by
their partners has dropped dramatically over the past few decades, the
number of women killed by their partners has stayed pretty much
constant. He explained that this is evidence that domestic violence
shelters have given women in difficult situations an alternative to
murdering their husbands.

It would seem obvious to infer that the number of women
killed by their partners might also drop dramatically if men
in equally difficult situations had an alternative to murdering their wives.
But Fellows says that Berman was instead looking for a case
that would illustrate the notion that anti-woman bias on the
part of judges and police officers is the reason the number
of women killed hasn't changed.

Should investigative TV programs really be predetermining the answers
and then looking for cases to support their theories? Or should they
be doing stories that paint an accurate picture?